Skip to main content

Full text of "Reasons for non-exclusion, with comments on the exclusion convention"

See other formats

Reasons for 



Comments on the 
Exclusion Convention 





is ^ 












Copyright, 1902, 
By Patrick J. Healy 





The Chinese exclusion convention which met in San Fran- 
cisco on the 21st and 22d of November, 1901, was in many re- 
spects a remarkable body. It was a far greater political 
gathering than is usual \y found at our regular biennial anti- 
coolie conventions. Being the first decennial of the expiration 
of the Geary Act, the promoters intended that it should be a 
great occasion, and so it was. 

It was the programme that the convention should be consid- 
ered a representative body, and if duplicated names of organiza- 
tions, towns, and counties was an evidence of such, it was a 
representative body. However, a slight inspection of the " pro- 
ceedings" and list of delegates will show how the convention 
was made up. Take Los Angeles County as an example. On 


page 6, the city of Los Angeles sends as trustees, among others, 
Messrs. Bulla, Del Valle, Jevne, Oliver, and Walker; on page 23, 
the same city of Los Angeles sends the same gentlemen; on 
page 11, Los Angeles County sends, among others, R. J. Adcock 
to represent it as a supervisor; then on page 23, Mr. Adcock's 
name appears again in the same capacity. Thomas Hughes is 
sent, with six other supervisors, to represent Los Angeles 
County as a supervisor, but, like Mr. Adcock, he is not satis- 
fied to have his name go down to posterity in company with his 
associates on the board. He wants a line to himself; so on 
page 22 we find Thomas Hughes as the sole representative of 
the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. Then the labor organ- 
izations of Los Angeles sent, among other delegates, Mr. 
J. A. Brose to represent the Cooks' Alliance No. 258. Scotch- 
men of the old school will see the fitness of that selection. 
The Monticello Club, on page 23, is credited with three dele- 
gates, while on page 24, R. P. Troy, probably rinding it incon- 
venient at the last moment to organize a stuffed club for the 
occasion, simply puts his name down as representing the same 
Monticello Club. On the same page the Hickory Club is 
allowed three delegates. 

Santa Ana sent six trustees and three delegates. Frank 
Ey is named, on page 8, among the trustees, and in the same 
line the Hon. Frank Ey is mentioned as a delegate. It 
is perhaps unkind to select such little incidents in the roll- 
stuffing process, but where we see a delegate and a trustee with 
only one Ey for their joint use, it sets one thinking, especially 
when he reads of the cooks' associations being represented by 
Brose, Catz, and Rabbit. I repeat that it is suggestive. Of 
course, no one would suspect that Mr. Samuel Braunhart, the 
statesman who originated the " isinglass ballot," would pin a 
delegate's badge on a lapel to which it did not belong. No, 
not he; for although it was alleged of him that he sold Chinese 
cigars, it is admitted, even by his enemies, that his conscience 
would not allow him to sell them without a " white label" 
attached to them. Thus the law and the profit were made to 
agree. The foregoing are only a few specimens selected at 
random from the twenty octavo pages devoted to the names 
of the delegates and the organizations to which they were 

It was stated by Mr. Cutler, who reported for the commit- 

tee on credentials, that there were three thousand accredited 
delegates, and that the secretary assured him that they were 
properly vouched for. The Temple, in which the convention 
was held, does not seat more than two thousand people, and 
the whole gallery — which is about half the area of the hall — 
was wholly assigned to the use of spectators, and at no time 
A\as the building filled with delegates and lookers-on. In 
adding up the twenty pages of delegates, we find fewer than 
1,950, including all the duplicates, and the delegates with fic- 
titious and facetious names, such as Brose, Catz, Rabbits, etc. 

The Old Friends are represented by "Dr." C. C. O'Donnell. 
On pages 20 and 21, San Francisco allows her civic organizations 
to be mentioned, and we have under that heading, the Polk 
Street Improvement Club, the Larkin Street Improvement 
Club, the Sixth Street Improvement Club, the Panhandle and 
Ashbury Heights Improvement Club. Here the representation 
from streets ended, although there were several hundred more 
that might have sent delegates with equal reason. 

The Rev. Mr. Rader, who doubted the efficacy of the gospel 
when preached to the Chinese in California, was a delegate 
from the Civic Federation, and not, as has been alleged, a 
delegate from the " Prosely tizers Protective League." On the 
whole, it was a free-and-easy convention, so far as membership 
goes, and any politician who did not get his name on the list 
of delegates has only himself to blame. 

This, however, did not prevent a few discrepancies. The 
Republican newspapers were not satisfied with the make-up 
of the committees, — too many Democrats, they said. Many 
incidents showed that while the convention was smooth 
on the surface, the cut-and-dried programme was extremely 
distasteful to those who were not in the ring. If the con- 
vention had continued another day there would have been an 
open row; as it was, the managers at the last moment had to 
call in Father Yorke to pour oil on the troubled waters. 

The members of the Union Labor Party were not satisfied 
with the use of the time of the convention by the "regular 
political hacks," and the labor leaders concentrated their 
influence to prevent the Hon. S. M. Shortridge from being 
heard. Mr. Shortridge is known to be a candidate for the 
United States Senate, and by all the customs and traditions of 
political procedure he had a right to declare his political 

intentions at any anti-coolie convention that would give him 
audience. The charge made against Mr. Shortridge, that he, 
as an attorney, urged the admission to Chinese prostitutes, had 
no special force, as nearly all the attorneys who were delegates 
were, at one time or another, attorneys of record for Chinese 
who were endeavoring to evade the law, or they were willing 
to engage in such service upon application. 

There were present at the convention at least four candidates 
for the United States Senate, five candidates for the governor- 
ship of California, and for the minor state offices the whole 
convention was there on exhibition before their satellites and 
henchmen. To show that the labor element was extremely 
jealous of the whole affair, the following incident from the 
"Proceedings" will illustrate. Delegate Popper moved that 
the roll as prepared by the secretary, who had just been elected, 
be adopted. Whereupon Mr. Rosenberg, a labor representative, 
made the following remarks: — 

" I am not in favor of the amendment. This is supposed to 
be a representative body. How many in this convention know 
anything about what the secretary has in his pocket? I stand 
for democracy and thorough representation, and I believe this 
whole matter should be handled by the convention. After the 
selection of a temporary secretary, a committee should be ap- 
pointed on credentials, and then a committee on organization, 
after we have got a body here to work on." 

Mr. Rosenberg carried his point, and a committee on creden- 
tials was appointed, of which Mr. Rosenberg was a member. 
This settled the question of credentials, and the danger that 
Mr. Rosenberg apprehended from what the secretary might 
have in his pocket was entirely obviated. 

The committee on credentials made a report later on that 
satisfied Mr. Rosenberg. 

The two ministers of the gospel who spoke at the convention 
looked very much out of place. They seemed to have little 
faith in the fatherhood of God or the brotherhood of man, when 
applied to the Chinese. Both gentlemen seemed to be ill at 
ease among the professional politicians. The following para- 
graphs from their speeches read somewhat apologetic: — 

Rev. Mr. Rader. — "It may appear to our fellow-citizens in 
the East that the people of California are violating their sacred 
faith in the brotherhood of man by resisting the immigration 

of the Chinese. Standing as the nation has so many years for 
the brotherhood of man, inviting the alien races of the earth to 
seek shelter and refuge under our flag, it may be asked if we 
in thf West are turning the hands back on the face of our na- 
tional policy and repudiating the Burlingame treaty of 1868, 
confessing that we are not equal to the task of Christianizing 
the races of the world." 

Again, Mr. Rader Bays that San Francisco is not equal to 
Chinese immorality, and asks, "Is Boston, or New York, or 
Chicago equal to the task of assimilating Chinese populations 
with American standards?" 

It is a great pity that a man who can size up the moral 
capacity and limitations of San Francisco did not give his 
hearers some inkling of what he meant by "American stan- 
dards " in relation to morality. If the morality which the 
gentleman had in his mind had reference to the family rela- 
tion, is it not the basest kind of hypocrisy to ask a man to be 
moral in that regard, and at the same time refuse him, by 
act of Congress — and edict of court — the right to bring his wife 
— the corner-stone of the home — with him? Talk of making 
bricks without straw, is not this a more insidious persecution? 

This studied persecution of the Chinese and demand of a 
moral status, without allowing the necessary factors thereto, 
goes a long way to prove our descent from or long contact 
with the self-righteous and hypocritical Anglo-Saxon, who 
made education a crime in Ireland, and then branded the 
Irish people as being ignorant and shiftless. 

Father Yorke. — "Let me say in conclusion: Do not wonder 
that a Catholic priest should speak thus to you. It has often- 
times been charged that those who speak against the Chinese 
immigration are forgetful of the brotherhood of man. It is 
often charged that their attitude is unchristian. It is often 
charged that they should welcome all these nations to their 
shores and to try to civilize them. Gentlemen, the grace of 
God is a very powerful thing, but the grace of God, it has been 
said, never gave any man common sense." 

An occasional admirer of the reverend gentleman wondered 
whether the last sentence in the paragraph quoted was not ap- 
plicable to his own attitude on the subject. The absence of 
single-tax speakers from the convention was noticed by many. 
It was also noticeable that delegates with distinctively Irish 

names were not much in evidence. A significant fact in this 
connection was that the speakers, in comparing the different 
racial traits, invariably placed the Irishman near the bottom of 
their category. This serves the Irishman right for taking part 
in any convention having for its purpose the exclusion of his 
fellow-toiler. If this crusade against the Chinese is successful, 
Father Yorke may have some strenuous work to perform in 
fighting against an Irish exclusion bill, and the Rev. Rader 
would probably be. found in the other camp. To show that 
Mr. Rader has little use for the Irishman, speaking of the im- 
migrants who "have become the pillars of the republic," he 
mentions all the prominent European nationalities, but com- 
pletely ignores the Irishman. This is what might be expected; 
and I should not be surprised to find that the A. P. A. are at 
the bottom of this exclusion movement. 

Mayor Snyder of Los Angeles — who, it is alleged, came north 
to enjoy our climate and announce his candidacy for the gov- 
ernorship — doubted the efficacy of Anglo-Saxon institutions, 
and said: " I am one of those who think that the ability of our 
people to assimilate alien races is about exhausted, and that 
the invitation to the peoples of every clime to join with us 
and participate in our great government of and for and by 
the people should be withdrawn/' 

This is the sentiment that pervaded the convention. Mayor 
Snyder was honest or reckless enough to give it utterance. In 
giving his list of " pillars of the republic," Mr. Snyder sand- 
wiched the Irishman between the " gallant Spaniard " and the 
"sturdy Scandinavian," heading his roll with the "ingenious 

There is quite a large Swiss population in California, and it 
is alleged that the male adults are nearly all naturalized 
citizens, and usually vote the Democratic ticket. And Mr. 
Sbarboro, who, being here himself, is now willing to keep out 
those — not born in his own country — who were late for the 
boat, joins Mr. Rader in placing the Scotchman as the first 
" pillar of our republic," and brings in the Irishman, as usual, 
in the role where Pat's traits excited the laughter and mirth 
of the convention. This shot at the Hibernian was rebuked 
later on by Mr. Macarthur. 

Mr. \V. A. Cole said: "We have no quarrel with men 
because of their race." He then enumerated the races that he 

would welcome. The Englishman first, then the German, the 
Italian, and after them, if there is room enough, the Irishman. 
M r. Cole welcomed the " Irishman because he has proven by- 
three hundred years of struggle for human rights [against 
Anglo-Saxon tyranny] that when he becomes a part of this 
country he will appreciate and adopt its principles." That is, 
after enduring the tyranny of a persecuting race, Pat is 
now asked to do some persecuting himself. Let us hope that 
the Irishman, who is just now awakening to the heritage of 
language and literature that is being restored to his race, will 
neither be a passive nor an active instrument in withholding 
from any people the rights that he claims for himself. The 
whole proceedings make very interesting reading, and will 
become an important historical document. 

After devoting the foregoing paragraphs to the convention, 
I think that its spirit may be still more effectively brought to 
the attention of the people by a running commentary on the 
memorial, which, for that purpose, will be liberally quoted 
from. The memorial is essentially Malthusian and pessi- 
mistic in its outlook, and the same spirit pervades nearly all 
the speeches that were delivered at the convention. This was 
especially noticeable in the speeches of the two Christian 
ministers, and in those of Mr. Phelan and Mr. Beale. On page 
92, the memorial reads: " Our white population suffered in 
every department of labor and trade, having in numerous 
instances been driven out of employment by the competition 
of the Chinese." This is claimed to be the condition of industry 
prior to the enactment of the first exclusion law. On the next 
page, the memorialists assert that "every material interest of 
the state has advanced, and prosperity has been our portion." 
This condition is claimed as the result of exclusion. In the 
product of eight industries alone, carried on in the city of San 
Francisco, the output has fallen $6,000,000 below what it was 
ten years ago. This is absolute loss, not taking into account 
what the product should amount to if it increased in the same 
proportion as our population. The memorial is filled with 
statements which are either taken for granted or are in flat 
contradiction of the ostensible purpose of the document. 

"In an age when the brotherhood of man has become more 
fully recognized, we are not prepared to overlook the welfare 
of the Chinaman himself." This is the cheerful, though mean- 

ingless, optimism of the memorial; but now comes Mr. Miller, a 
trades-unionist from St. Louis, who was not a representative 
from any organization on this Coast, and was careful to tell 
the convention of the powerful organization that he belonged 
to in St. Louis, and of the watchful care that Mr. Gompers was 
giving this movement. Mr. Miller said, among other things, 
"that we — the trades-unionists — draw no color line," and 
that the fundamental principle of organized labor was to 
recognize "the brotherhood of man"; but the next minute he 
said that "that was not the brotherhood of Chinamen." 

In one breath they proclaim the " brotherhood of man," and 
in the next deny its application. Does any sensible man 
believe that the liberties and rights of the people are safe in 
such keeping? 

Is the new tyranny much better than the old ? The Chinese 
are alleged to have "crowded out the native population, and 
driven the country boy from the farm to the city, where he 
meets their skilled competition in many branches of industry." 
The petitioners seem to forget that this rushing of country 
boys to the city is a very old and widespread custom. Whit- 
tington, thrice Lord Ma3^or of London, was a country boy, and 
millions of boys since his day have rushed to the cities, and 
will continue to do so, independently of any Chinese competi- 

Massachusetts, where there is practically no Chinese compe- 
tition, complains of the same tendency, and some years ago 
published a list of her abandoned farms, — abandoned because 
the boys rushed to the cities. The evil is rife in England, and 
has been for many years. The Irishman plays the role in 
England that the Chinaman does here, and the English laborer 
finds the same fault with the Irish harvester that the Califor- 
nia trades-unionist charges against the Chinese, — working 
cheap, living on a few potatoes, and taking the few shillings, 
that are saved, after keeping body and soul together, back to 
"Tir na n'og," to spend it with those who would give their lives 
for him. The memorial reads: "For their services they [the 
Chinese] may be said to be paid twice, — first by their em- 
ployer, and then by the community." This is a brand-new 
theory of wages, and if it applies to the Chinese, it ought to 
apply to all other toilers with equal force and effect. And if 
it applies to wages, why not also to rent ? Let us see how it 

would work. Suppose that the Chinaman who rents property 
from Mr. Phelan should say to him at the end of a dry season, 
when asking for a reduction, "Mr. Phelan, I pay you rent two 
times, — one time to your agent, when he called for it; another 
time when you received the money from your agent and de- 
posit it in your own bank, where you will pay interest (rent) 
to yourself for the money that I paid to your agent, or if your 
bank no good for interest, you may buy bond with my money; 
now,' Mr. Phelan, I hope you make the reduction, as I pay you 
two times all the same that you pay the white man when he 
build you one fence and you tell him that he charge too 

We grudgingly pay the Chinese the lowest possible amount 
for a service that no one else will do for us so well or so cheaply, 
and then we resent his thrift and frugality, and are chagrined 
because when he is paid he does not rush to the saloon, the 
dive, and the slot-machine, nor do any immoral thing that would 
cause him to spend the trifle that remains after nourishing his 
exhausted body. Thrift is no virtue when practiced by a 
Chinaman. Without taking into account the constant stream 
of gold that the Irish have been sending for years to Ireland, 
where the most of it has been spent in supporting a rack-rent- 
ing land system nearly as bad as that we have in California, it 
can be safely said that the exploiters of the " Bonanza " mines 
on the Comstock lode have spent more American gold in Europe 
during the past thirty years than that sent to China by all 
the Chinamen who ever came to this country; and there is 
not a word of protest about their extravagance, not even 
from the trades-unionists. The memorial reads: "If we 
have protection, is it not better to protect ourselves against 
the man than against his trade?" "Trade" probably means 
"product" in this instance. That is, we may exclude the 
Asiatic laborer, but it may be desirable to admit the product 
of his labor, and allow it to come into competition with the 
product of the American toiler. Is there any consolation in 
this for the shoemaker, the cigar-maker, or the makers of a 
hundred other commodities that can be made abroad by the 
Chinese while working in the warm and genial atmosphere of 
their ancestral homes, in the shadow of their family altar, 
where their wives and children can assist them in their toil? 
I am amazed when I think of the ship-loads of Chinese pro- 

ducts that may be thrown upon our shores — perhaps forcibly 
— by the skillful, untiring, and patient Chinese; for, after we 
have driven them from our country, let every one remember, 
that no matter what fine phrases you may put on paper or 
parchment, we are sure to buy in the lowest market. This is 
a law of our being. Mr. Sbarboro puts that finely; so I quote 
him: " Gentlemen, as a business man, I am free to state my 
belief, that the merchant, be he from China or from any other 
part of the world, does not exist who will not purchase from 
the people of the country where he can obtain the best article 
at the lowest price, and who will not sell to the people of the 
country which will pay him the best price for his wares." 

Are we not in a dilemma? We say that we cannot com- 
pete with the Chinaman here within our own gates, where we 
have all the advantages; and delegates to the convention tell 
us that we are not rid of him even in China, because they allege 
that his labor will be much more efficient there, and being a 
small consumer, he must naturally find an outlet for his 
surplus product, and this market being the best in the world, 
the Chinaman's surplus will be sent here. Another delegate 
says, that if his product is not sent here it will be sent to other 
markets, where it will come into direct competition with the 
products of free American labor, and of course will be sold at 
prices that we cannot compete with, unless the American 
manufacturer can and will sell his products abroad for less 
than he will sell them to the producers and consumers at 

The memorial goes on to say that the Chinese are capable 
of working only under the present system. This seems an 
extremely hazardous assertion, in view of the fact that the 
same document asserts that the Chinese are skilled and are 
capable of almost any skilled emplo} r ment. A delegate to the 
convention told how readily the Chinese railroad laborer 
learned to make shoes and cigars, and that when he had these 
mysteries mastered, he did not sit down contentedly, like his 
white brother, and work for wages. No; he associated with his 
fellow-Chinamen, and they worked for themselves, thus teach- 
ing the white man a lesson that he is slow to profit by. It 
seems to be the highest ambition of the white workingmen of 
this country to work for a "boss," and receive wages, not 
realizing that under our feudal system of land tenure, wages 

is nothing more than a species of slavery, much more profitable 
to the employer than would be chattel slavery if it could be 
restored. If the Chinese can combine so readily, and are so 
skilled, as is admitted, does it look reasonable that there is any 
reorganization of industry that they are unable to comprehend 
or take advantage of? Those who talk of the limitations of 
the Chinese in regard to economics forget that China is the 
oldest example of continuous civilization existing to-day, and 
that much of what we think new in industrial organization 
has had a long trial in that country. The subdivision of labor 
and co-operation in production and distribution are old stories 
in China. Notwithstanding our great advance, materially, it 
is possible that we can learn something from a friendly contact 
with our Asiatic brethren. 

They might, for example, teach us how to keep our soil pro- 
ductive; how to return to it the fertilizing constituents that 
are extracted from it by each crop, — a problem that is pressing 
hard upon our agriculturists. 

" But shall husbandry he abandoned to a servile class?" say 
the petitioners. Perish the thought. No, indeed; let us leave 
the field to the Italian, the Portuguese, and that proud product 
of Anglo-Saxon civilization, the "tramp." As for our native 
sons, they will take good care that their education and environ- 
ment will get them an opportunity to hold down a job in the 
town or city. Such is the tendency of modern life, and Cali- 
fornia is not behind the age in that respect. 

The memorial reads: "Let their [the Chinese] merchants, 
travelers, and students then come here as before." This is in- 
consistent and discriminating. Why should the convention 
discourage any class of producers who are brought in direct 
competition with the Chinese? What has the American mer- 
chant done, that he should not be protected as well as the 
citizen who rolls cigars? Does he not also produce? Is he 
not a cog in the wheel of exchange? And if so, why should 
he not be benefited by this remedial legislation that is im- 
plored? Is it because he has no strong trade-union behind 

" Let American ideas of progress and enterprise be planted 

on Chinese soil." So say the petitioners. I suppose that 

means that the Chinese shall be taught how to concentrate the 

scattered industries of their empire under a few philanthropic 


" Lockafellas," so that useless competition can he dispensed 
with, and that their tea and rice can be "cornered," shipped 
to foreign markets, and sold there cheaper than they are sold 
at home to those who produce them. Our American industrial 
missionaries might teach the Chinese employer — if he needed 
the knowledge — how to get the greatest amount of work out of 
the toiler in the least amount of time, and at the least cost, re- 
gardless of consequences to the human machine. 

Our judges, too, might instruct the Chinese judiciary in the 
use of that popular and protean legal method, the "injunc- 
tion." As for teaching Christianity to the Chinese, they have 
good memories. The looting of Pekin, the desecration of their 
temples, and the violation of their women, are of so recent oc- 
currence that, for the present, it would be unprofitable to at- 
tempt to force the gospel upon them. The work of the mission- 
ary has been seriously retarded in China, and whatever real 
Christianity we have retained after our contact with the 
weaker races is much needed at home. The Rev. Mr. Rader 
truly says that "white vice is as evil as yellow vice." 

The memorial says: "The Caucasian will not tolerate the 
Mongolian. As, ultimately, all government is based on physi- 
cal force, the white population of this country will not, 
without resistance, suffer itself to be destroyed." I suppose 
this means that if the representatives of eighty millions of 
people, now in Congress assembled, should refuse to grant 
the prayer of the petitioners, the white population of Cali- 
fornia might be inflamed by incendiary demagogues, some of 
whom spoke at the convention, to arise and slay the peaceful 
Chinamen, whose great offense is that they are willing to ex- 
change a large amount of their services for a small quantity of 
our coin. This might easily happen; it has happened before. 
Rock Springs, Seattle, and Tacoma are examples of how utterly 
brutal and insensate Anglo-Saxon mobs can become when 
they think that a weaker race stands between them and food 
and shelter, blind to the fact that the source of all wealth — 
the land — lies under their feet and awaits their appropriation 
of it whenever they display sense superior to that of an oyster. 

The petitioners evidently believe that the American toiler 

will always be as blind to his own interest as he is to-day. I 

do not agree with them. I think that the time is coming 

soon when the toiler the world over will see no enemy in his 


fellow-worker. The laborer will see that his great enemy is 
the man who hinders him from access to the natural sources 
of wealth, — the common property of mankind; he will see that, 
not John Chinaman, but the man who prevents him from ex- 
changing the product of his labor with any and all producers at 
the least cost, is his enemy. In a reasonable state of society, 
producers could not be considered enemies of each other. The 
American toiler is not adrift in an open boat with insufficient 
provisions to reach a haven. If he were so conditioned, the 
right of self-preservation might be discussed as a practical 
issue. No; he is not at sea; he is the inhabitant of a country 
whose natural resources are yet unexplored, and without 
limit, — a country easily capable of sustaining the peoples of 
the earth, and whose soil is hardly touched in a scientific way. 
My dear, stupid worker, why don't you see this great fact that 
is thrusting itself before you wherever you turn? However, 
there is hope. The American toiler is beginning to ask ques- 
tions. Indeed, it looks as if it were the American landholder 
and his attorneys that were behind this new anti-Chinese 

It is a fact that many of the delegates to the convention 
are large holders of Californian lands, which they hold out of 
legitimate economic use. The American landholder knows 
that the American worker is the peer of all laborers, so far as 
production is concerned, and he trusts that the toiler may 
remain as indifferent to his own interests as he has been here- 
tofore. The American monopolist is not particularly interested 
in getting cheap Chinese labor into this country; his methods 
of exploiting the people are much more efficient. All the 
monopolist needs to do is to have Congress pass a law pro- 
tecting an "infant industry " from outside competition; then 
he secures all the material resources needed in the manufacture 
of his particular output; then, when the home market is sup- 
plied at a price that forces out foreign competition, the surplus 
can be sold in China or elsewhere, and at prices that will de- 
moralize any market in the world. Up to the present the 
wage-worker has helped his employer to obtain this outrageous 
privilege and to accomplish this murderous result. 

I have said elsewhere that the monopolists are indifferent to 
the fate of the Exclusion Act. It is now recognized by large 
employers that the Chinese and other Asiatic laborers are not 

as amenable to discipline as are white laborers. This is 
especially so with reference to the use of the "injunction" as a 
factor in the settlement of labor troubles. Let the laborers of 
this country attempt to make the owners of franchises — the 
foundation of monopoly — pay the rental value of the basis of 
their monopoly, then we should see an entirely different con- 
vention, and different kind of men would be sent to the seat of 
legislation, using arguments, many of which would never 
appear in print. " But this is not alone a race, labor, and 
political question. It is one in which our civilization and the 
interests of the people of the world are involved." The peti- 
tioners are evidently disciples of Kipling, as the " white man's 
burden" seems to be pressing heavily upon them. Was it not 
Tolstoi who said that the rich reformers were willing to do 
everything for the poor toiler except to "get off his back"? 
So with the memorialists, they beat around the bush, using 
many high-sounding and meaningless phrases, but not one of 
them has the courage to tell the toiler what is really holding 
him down. 

Some of the petitioners could not very well impart such 
knowledge and maintain a straight face. They talk about the 
interest of the peoples of the world, and then deliberately 
attempt to exclude a people composing one third of the 
population of the earth from whatever benefits residence in 
this land might give them. The petitioners show their knowl- 
edge of the classics by quoting Pliny's famous saying, that 
" great estates ruined Italy," — a somewhat suggestive quotation 
in a Californian convention, the state, of all others, where great 
estates exist, and where princely domains are held out of legi- 
timate economic use. If the convention had been held for abol- 
ishing the evils resulting from the holding of great estates, sev- 
eral of the prominent delegates would have been discussing an 
evil of which they were a part. It is marvelous that a body of 
seemingly intelligent men should meet in this city, more than 
twenty years after the publication of " Progress and Poverty," 
and talk seriously about restricting production as a remedy for 
human distress. It shows how slowly the human family ac- 
cepts a truth, even when it is directly for their benefit. 

" But this country is not solely concerned, even in a coldly 
economic way, with the production of wealth. The United 
States has now a greater per capita of working energy than any 

other land. If it is stimulated by a non-assimilative and non- 
en n-uming race, there is grave danger of over-production and 
stagnation. . . . The distribution of wealth, not its production, 
is to-day our most public question." So the trouble that is 
feared by Messrs. Phelan and Beale, and the rest of the memo- 
rialists who signed the document, and the working people of 
California, who are supposed to have been represented, is, that 
if the Chinese are not shut out we are in danger of having too 
much food, too much clothing, too many good houses to live 
in, too many good books to read, and too much leisure for 
friendly intercourse, or to contemplate the problems of life. 
We are in danger of having so much and so many good things, 
that the landlord will forget to collect his rents, the monopo- 
list will hasten to get rid of his products on the basis of "cost 
the limit of price." So, to avert this dread calamity, we are called 
upon to prevent an industrious and frugal people from coming 
to our shores, — a people who would do all in their power to 
make it possible for every toiler within their influence to get 
more in exchange for his labor than he could before they came; 
because, all other factors being equal, the country where there 
is the most production is the country whose producers should 
have the most to consume. Do the petitioners give a hint as 
to why that condition does not obtain in this country, more 
especially here in California, where the sources of food, cloth- 
ing, and shelter exist in such profusion? Why did not Mr. 
Beale or Mr. Phelan tell his audience that no matter how 
much was produced, or by whom, there could be no equitable 
distribution so long as the source of production — the land — 
was monopolized, and held out of legitimate economic use. 
Both Mr. Phelan and Mr. Beale are perfectly familiar with this 
economic truth, yet there is not a hint of it in the memorial. 

Many of the representatives of labor who were delegates to 
the convention assume to be familiar with this basic principle, 
yet they willfully neglected a splendid opportunity of asserting 
man's right of access to the earth, from which he must live. 

It might prevent our threatened congestion if we could send 
some of our surplus products to Chicago, where the " sweat- 
shop" operatives are hardly keeping body and soul together. 
Just think of Americans working in Chicago for $76 per annum, 
and no Chinese competing with them. And think of expecting 
such slaves to lead moral lives. 

Yes; we may well believe that "this country is not solely 
concerned, even in a coldly economic sense, with the production 
of wealth," and that it is in fact coldly and brutally indifferent 
to the distribution of it. 

If Congress will only repeal all laws granting special privi- 
leges, encourage the utmost freedom of production and ex- 
change, then the toilers of all races that are within our gates 
will rejoice, and maybe able to settle their economic differences 
on a basis of equity. History does not tell us of a nation that 
has flourished by or through restriction. The exodus of the 
Huguenots from France was no doubt the beginning of her 
decay, as their presence was a benefit to the countries in which 
they settled. The migration of the Flemings to Britain was a 
distinct benefit to that country. And Spain has never recovered 
from the effect of driving the Jews from her territory. 

After saying all that can be said against our yellow brother, 
the memorialists assert, let us hope with some misgiving, that 
"we have nothing on our national conscience, because the 
Chinaman has a great industrial destiny in his own country." 
If they were really sincere in this assertion, they would cherish 
the few Chinese that are here, and teach them the arts of 
peace and war to the extent of their capacity. Then we might 
reasonably expect a reciprocity with China, which cannot be 
hoped for during our present hostile attitude. We unblush- 
ingly boast of our increasing trade with China, even under the 
unfriendly relations that now exist. If such is the fact, might 
we not reasonably expect to have the lion's share of that trade 
in the future, when the people of China shall have departed 
from their antiquated methods of production? California 
fronts on the Pacific Ocean, — a near commercial neighbor of 
China. In a normal condition of things, we should expect an 
immense trade with that country. And now comes Mr. 
Macarthur, representing the sailors, and says that the attitude 
of labor on the question of commerce with China is shown in 
the following: "We take the position that if the commerce of 
China, notwithstanding its increase since the Geary exclusion 
act was passed, had increased ten times as much as it has, or 
a thousand times as much as it has, if to preserve that trade 
we would have to endanger the welfare of a single, solitary 
American citizen, man, woman, or child, we are willing to 
sacrifice every dollar of it." These are brave words, and they 

forcibly remind one of Artemus Ward's patriotism during the 
War of the Rebellion, when he seriously and solemnly offered 
to sacrifice all his wife's relations rather than see the Union 
destroyed, or go to the front himself. 

Before we exclude the Chinese as factors in our industrial 
life, we might profitably employ a few thousand of them 
making roads through the foothills and Coast Range Mountains 
of California, which are now comparatively uninhabited for 
want of adequate means of communication. We have millions 
of acres of swamps, which, when reclaimed and cultivated, are 
capable of supporting the entire population of the state. This 
work lies waiting for the Chinaman. The white man will not 
do it. Think of the economic suicide it would be to refuse 
to allow such labor to enter into our state, — the very labor 
that we are most in need of. 

These are merely local suggestions as to how some of the 
Chinese labor might be utilized. There are no doubt a score 
of states where it might be employed in like manner, for the 
benefit of the whole community, if there was not some dema- 
gogue in the way, who doubted the power of God to convert a 
human soul because the soul-case happens to be yellow, or who 
would sacrifice one industry to benefit another. If the people 
of California are really in earnest in getting rid of the Chinese, 
they can easily do so without asking Congress to violate the 
charter of our liberties. Stop patronizing them, and not only 
will there be no more Chinese immigrants, but those who are 
here will leave us. The anti-coolie statesman must admit that 
this is a perfect cure for the disease that he alleges we are suf- 
fering from. 

The people of California, who are not tied up in unions, are 
either indifferent to the presence of the Chinese, or they are in 
favor of a general immigration law which would allow a reason- 
able number of Chinese to come to our country, or they are not 
honest in their alleged opposition to them. 

The Chinese are an absolute necessity in the prosecution of 
many industries of this state, and are a great benefit in locali- 
ties where women cannot be found in sufficient numbers to 
perform the duties pertaining to the household. 

One of the most inconsistent features of the convention was 
the way it backed down in relation to the Japanese, who are 
admitted on all sides to be even more dangerous competitors 

than are the Chinese. It was no doubt the original purpose of 
the exclusionists to petition that the Japanese be treated the 
same as the Chinese. The cloak-makers petitioned the meet- 
ing about their dangerous competition. Governor Gage and 
Mayor Schmitz both wrote to the convention about the evils of 
Japanese competition. Mr. Wheeler, a delegate from Los 
Angeles, said in his speech, " that where Chinamen had been 
employed at labor, the companies, to further reduce their ex- 
penses, have employed the Japs at fifty cents a day less than 
the Chinamen." 

And Congressman Wood, who acknowledged that he made 
a "razzle-dazzle talk," spoke on the Japanese danger, and 
came back to the platform to say, that "if we can re-enact, in 
the presence of the possible opposition which we will have there, 
the Geary Act, with the proposed amendments thereto, we will 
have achieved a great victory. Therefore, let the Japanese 
question abide a while, and we will take care of that a little 

It is pertinent to ask here how much the convention was in- 
fluenced in ignoring the Japanese question by the circulation 
of a remarkable petition signed by Masuji Miyakawa, the edi- 
tor of the Japan Tribune. The following extract from the 
document speaks for itself: "The Japanese spirit is proud and 
positive. Japanese never intrude nor impose themselves where 
they are not welcome. This very fact, and the edict above 
mentioned, which shall continue in full force, is an amply 
sufficient law of exclusion. Our people, instinctively and vol- 
untarily, are self-exclusive. We are naturally seclusive. As a 
nation, we can well afford to return to our pristine hermitage 
and still keep in the van of modern progress. We can get 
along without the United States much better than the United 
States can get along without Japan. We can stand alone, and 
luxuriously exist upon our own resources. Moreover, the per- 
sonnel and equipments of our navy are equal to that of yours; 
and that of our army can, upon a moment's notice, be made to 
be so, while our coast defenses will shortly be such that we 
fear no aggressor, and our military bushido spirit knows no 
surrender. We can ally ourselves with any other country, 
should this great American nation deny us the full rights guar- 
anteed by the treaty. We shall accept nothing short of the 
equal rights and privileges extended to the citizens of Euro- 

pean countries, for reasons that may be inferred from the 
following and foregoing suggestions." 

The power behind exclusion is the trades-union — a labor 
trust — which, with all due respect to many well-meaning 
members, is but little more representative of the interests 
of the whole people than is the employers' trust. Both or- 
ganizations are supremely selfish, so far as the interests of the 
helpless and unorganized consumer are concerned. If Con- 
gress is desirous of acting intelligently, let the various states 
be requested to call for a plebiscite of the whole people on the 
question. The people of Maine are just as much interested in 
this subject as are the people of this thinly populated fringe 
of territory out here on the verge of the continent. This 
matter should not be hurried. If it is found, after due inves- 
tigation, that exclusion is the best policy for this country, we 
can put up the bars at any time. There is always time 
enough to make fools of ourselves. 

I think that I have fairly shown the animus of the exclu- 
sionists, the faking character of their convention, the brutal 
sentiments of the speakers, the inconsistent and contradictory 
nature of their memorial, and the utter untruthfulness of their 
statements. The Chinese question is a world problem, and it 
would be utter folly for Congress to compromise the people of 
this country upon a question of such vital importance to the 
whole nation at the behest of a body of men who do not know 
the cause of their misfortunes, — men who fail to see that if all 
the Chinese were deported to-morrow, cheap labor would still 
remain, — and that, as far as labor is concerned, it is the cheap 
capital and cheap labor of the East that is crowding out the 
local product from the markets of this Coast. 

" The more organized labor champions the cause of labor, 
unorganized as well as organized, the greater will be its victo- 
ries, the more lasting, the more permanent, the more benefi- 
cial, the more far-reaching, will be its successes. If it would 
extend and broaden its influence — aye, if it would accomplish 
most for itself — it must persistently and vigorously attack 
special privileges in every form; it must make the cause of 
humanity its cause." — From a Speech by Robert Baker at Cen- 
tral Labor Union, Brooklyn, N. Y., December 10, 1901. 

Exclusion is no remedy for the wrongs of the toiler. 


Most of the matter in the folloiving pages loas written and 
printed separately, and forwarded to the national capital, about 
the 1st of January, 1901 : — 

This country is just recovering from a severe fit of hysteria, 
during the continuance of which it has not been safe for a sane 
man to express his views on government or political economy, 
if they differed radical^ from the commonplace, or conflicted 
with those held by the victims of the mania. In like manner, 
we in California are just now compelled in a small way to en- 
dure the ravings of the reformers, who want all sorts of unrea- 
sonable laws favoring their pet schemes. The general preva- 
lence of strikes during the past season has prepared the people 
to tolerate almost any kind of scheme that promises to better 
the social condition of the laborer and restore industrial 

Organized labor has lately received recognition such as it 
has never had before in this country, and it is quite probable 
that the representatives of the trades-unions will demand that 
the present Congress shall pass laws which will have a tendency 
to restrain trade and interfere with individual freedom. We 
are used to this periodic agitation for restriction in California, 
as we have a regular biennial grievance, — I might say nuisance, 
— the anti-Chinese convention. The anti-Chinese convention 
has been for many years a favorite means employed by politi- 
cal aspirants to reach the ear of the public. This year it has 
been intensified, because it happens to be the first decennial of 
the passage of the Geary Act. 

The politicians from all over the state convened in this city 
on the 21st and 22d of November, 1901, ostensibly to formulate 
a memorial to Congress, but mainly to trot out candidates for 
the next election. Our anti-Chinese convention is as much an 
institution of California as Chinatown, the Big Trees, Yosemite 
Valley, or our incomparable climate. 

Having lived in this state more than thirty years, I have at- 
tended many of these conventions, and have enjoyed them as 
a phase of the farce-comedy of politics. The people at large 
no longer take any serious interest in these conventions. They 
know their true character, and that the politician must have 
both opportunity and occasion to discharge his debt to " Bun- 
combe County." 

The people of California are not really anti-Chinese in senti- 
ment. Where they are not favorable to their employment, 
they are merely indifferent. If a referendum were submitted to- 
morrow, there would be more than 883 who would vote for a 
reasonable immigration of Chinese. It may be well to remark 
here, that, in 1879, when the people of California were polled 
on the Chinese question, both the vote and the count were open 
to grave suspicion. 

If there was such an overwhelming vote as that asserted 
against Chinese immigration, it was because the people had lost 
their political moorings, — they were both hypnotized and ter- 
rorized by the "soap-box" orators of the "sand-lot." 

To the outsider who hears our grievance, we seem to be in 
danger of starvation, or if he looks at the matter from another 
point of view, he may imagine that we are struggling with the 
wily Asiatic in a vain effort to prevent him from forcing his 
products upon us for the least possible consideration. For, 
notwithstanding all that has been said and written about the 
immorality of the pagan who is within our gates, it is the eco- 
nomic question that is at the bottom of the whole affair. 

Those who have read " Some Reasons for Chinese Exclusion; 
or, Meat vs. Rice," etc., — a pamphlet issued by the American 
Federation of Labor, — have the whole grievance in a nutshell. 
The pamphlet is no doubt compiled to convert pro-Chinese 
readers east of the Rocky Mountains, because the statements 
contained therein have been made so often here that they cease 
to affect us, — that is, we know that the statements contained 
therein have no foundation in fact, or if true, are not peculiar 
to our community. The sweat-shops of Chicago, where there 
are no Chinese, may be referred to in verification of this state- 

Mr. Gompers, who is presumably responsible for the issu- 
ance of " Meat vs. Rice," starts in, on page 5, with some history, 
and tells his readers that "in the early settlement of the state 
[California], now unquestionably one of the grandest in the 
Union, when mining was the chief industry, and labor, by rea- 
son of its scarcity, well paid, the presence of a few thousands 
of Chinese, who were willing to work in occupations then seri- 
ously in want of labor, and at lower wages than the standard, 
caused no serious alarm or discomfort." This is a pregnant 
paragraph, and can be used to advantage in explaining the 

economic conditions which prevail here, and which would pre- 
vail even if there were no Chinese in the country, and I think 
it can he used to advantage in explaining some of the condi- 
tions which Mr. Gompers appears to have overlooked. 

When we Argonauts of '49, '59, and '69 came to this " stern 
and rock-bound coast," the country was open to any one to 
take his share, and work it for gold or greens, as the situation 
justified. There was opportunity for all, and many an immi- 
grant found himself in conditions where there was a serious 
need of labor, and at wages lower than the standard. Nor did 
the free competition of the Corkman, the Kanaka, and the 
Chinaman cause any serious alarm or discomfort; and such 
competition would not cause any discomfort to-day if the same 
conditions existed. Why not do something, Mr. Gompers, to 
restore those free conditions? 

In fact, it was just such free competition and abundance of 
labor that gave the state its impetus in the early period of its 
history, — conditions that warranted the government in aiding 
the building of a transcontinental railroad, and encouraged the 
capitalist to invest in what was then considered a hazardous 
enterprise. It is well to ask how these conditions were changed, 
and by whom. Not by John Chinaman; he was content to 
work right along at occupations that made it possible for the 
Argonauts to have some sort of home-life in California, even in 
the days of '49, and for a compensation that made it possible 
for the comparatively poor home-maker to employ him. He 
became our gardener, cook, and laundry-man, and worked for 
wages that tempted neither the Afro-Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, nor 
the Paddy-Saxon, if I may be allowed to suggest varieties of 
the modern imperial race-claimant. 

This economic Elysium existed in California until the 
hyphenated Saxons grabbed the natural resources of the coun- 
try, which they succeeded in doing, by force or fraud, in about 
ten years. The great Spanish grants were wrested from their 
original claimants; the broad acres of the public domain were 
soon acquired by methods that will not bear investigation; 
both the letter and spirit of the mineral land laws were so 
changed and twisted that the poor but independent white man 
could no longer roam from one end of the state to the other 
with the assurance of finding "poor-man's diggings," where, 
if he could not find gold enough to satisfy his desires, he could 

-ov. wheat or raise cattle. As the land became the property 
of the shrewd and unscrupulous adventurer, the "blanket-man," 
who at first was simply a Bign of healthy discontent, became 
an institution, degenerating into the tramp, — the menace and 
reproach of our civilization. When free access to the land no 
longer existed, and employment became scarce, the demagogue, 
as usual, willfully blind to the real evil, sought for a scape- 
goat. There is land enough to-day in California, both agricul- 
tural and mineral, to support ten times our present population, 
but it is no longer accessible to the poor man. It is held in 
large tracts, out of legitimate economic use, under law that 
perhaps was good enough in the feudal ages, but which is to- 
day a most stupendous barrier to human progress. The anti- 
Chinese demagogues, who presume to voice the sentiments of 
the people of California, carefully ignored this vicious defect 
in our political economy, and as in all human history, the 
weakest of our kind was pronounced the cause of our misfor- 
tunes. So the Chinaman is made the California scapegoat. 
He is charged with working below the American wage-standard. 
Let us pause here to ask, if there is any such standard, and if 
there is, when and where it was promulgated, and to w r hat class 
of toilers it applies. We have no minimum wage-rate in any 
state in the Union. Having no statutory limit below which 
wages can fall, where is the wage-standard ? The people who 
prate about the American wage-standard know that there is no 
such thing. But if an American wage-standard can be found, 
I would suggest that Mr. Gompers apply it at once to the sweat- 
shops of Chicago, where the wage-rate is said to be $76 per an- 
num; or to the Southern cotton-mills, where little children 
under ten years have been worked at the wheel until they have 
fallen in their tracks; or to the wage-slaves who wear out their 
lives in the coal-mines of Pennsylvania. 

There are no Chinese in any of these places to hinder the 
good work. Why do not Mr. Gompers and his associates 
endeavor to restore the conditions which will make Chinese 
competition as harmless as he admits it to have been in the 
days of '49? In this day, when the world is gridironed with 
lines of communication, it is useless to attempt to get rid of 
the effect of Chinese competition in any particular com- 
munity. We all bear testimony to the Chinaman's skill, 
sobriety, and patience; to his great capacity for work, and for 

that kind of monotonous labor which is so distasteful to the 
American. And is it to remain the great reproach of our time 
that this reservoir of human energy cannot be utilized upon 
this western continent, — a land whose potential wealth is 
simply incalculable? Is it possible that the production of the 
necessaries of life in abundance and cheapness can always be 
considered a grievance by the very class that is perishing 
through the lack of them? How long will the practical 
countryman of Crosby, Hoar, McCall, and Jordan respect the 
fetish of feudal law which we have consecrated into statute and 
worship in decision? There is apparent apathy, yet I believe 
that the day is breaking. The clouds are parting in the East, 
and it may be, as of old, that the human race will receive its 
light from the Orient, "Ex Oriente lux." 

Like many other documents written for a serious purpose, 
"Meat vs. Rice" has a humorous side for those whose eyes are 
not covered with a yellow film. On page 16, after reciting how 
the cigar and other industries of San Francisco are monopo- 
lized by the Chinese, the writer relates "that no white butcher 
dared kill a hog, for fear of incurring the displeasure of the 
Chinese. This state of affairs became so obnoxious and un- 
bearable, that the retail butchers could no longer submit, and 
with the assistance of the wholesale butchers and the citizens 
generally, finally succeeded in wresting the monopoly from the 
hands of the Chinese oppressors." Where is the painter who 
will immortalize himself by putting this thrilling scene on 
canvas? Just imagine the wholesale butchers and citizens 
generally, in serried ranks, supported by a gallant reserve of 
retail pig-stickers with knives newly ground and steels dan- 
gling at their sides, holding marching to Chinatown to wrest 
the sacred pig from the hated Mongol. No, — not that, but 
strenuously contending for the exclusive right to sell the pig at 
retail rates to their white brethren. Is it not strange that the 
white retail butchers and the pig-eating citizens generally did 
not think of asking their wholesale butcher friends to aid them 
in restoring the conditions that prevailed in the early settle- 
ment of the state, when the employment of labor at wages 
lower than the standard caused no serious discomfort ? Some 
of these wholesale butchers could aid them very much in that 
direction. One firm alone is alleged to own fourteen millions 
of acres of land in California and neighboring territory. Not 

B word from the retail butchers, not a word from the citizens 
generally, not a word from Mr. Gompers, as to the necessity of 
restoring this vast territory to the uses of the people, for whom 
it was created, and to whom it belongs. 

The wholesale butchers of this city have practically a com- 
plete monopoly of the meat sold in this market, — the Chinese, 
as well as the white retail butchers, being compelled to get 
their meat-supply from them. There are no Chinese wholesale 
butchers in San Francisco. This is written that the reader 
east of the Rocky Mountains may not waste tears on the poor 
wholesale butcher of this city. That kind of irrigation is more 
needed elsewhere. The Chinese are great consumers of pork, 
and they eat much of the pig that white people do not relish; 
so they have the choice parts to sell to those who are aware of 
the opportunity. In fact, their best customers are the white 
owners of "chop-houses," and some of those same white retail 
butchers who made such a gallant effort to wrest the monopoly 
from their Chinese oppressors. 

The pamphlet recounts the usual harrowing stories of Chinese 
female slavery, and the filthy and unsanitary conditions of 
Chinatown. To dwell upon this phase of the question is sim- 
ply to confess our own turpitude. 1 We have been for ages try- 
ing to suppress gambling and prostitution among our own 
Anglo-Saxons, and no one can truthfully say that we have 
succeeded. In this state, where five citizens have been lynched 
on one occasion within the past year, and where the officers of 
the law almost confess that the parties who are alleged to have 
committed the crime cannot have a fair trial, or in fact be 
punished at all; in a country where our fellow-men are burned 
at the stake for the alleged commission of crimes, for which 
they are entitled to a trial by due process of law; and in a 
country where the annual wage paid in the Chicago sweat- 
shops is no more that $76, — is it not utter hypocrisy to assume 
a high standard of morality? 

Let us keep on with the economic side of the question. 

On page 35, the San Francisco memorialists recount their 
grievances as follows: " They [the Chinese] have invaded the 
cigar, shoe, broom, chemical, clothing, fruit-canning, match- 

i " Then it is the sentiment of this convention that we can charge to the laxness 
of our officials here a large part of the vice and crime which exists in Chinatown 
to-day. (Applause.)" — From Mr. Benham's speech in the convention. 


making, woolen-manufacturing industries, and have displaced 
more than 4,000 white men in these several employments in 
the city of San Francisco." I take it that the whole value of 
this memorial and pamphlet rests upon the truthfulness of 
this statement. 

Let us examine the facts. To start with, we will give the 
conditions of the industries which are alleged to have been 
invaded by the Chinese, as reported by the assessor at the end 
of the fiscal year 1890-91. By starting at this date, we have 
ten years of the working of the Geary Act for purpose of com- 
parison; and as that was the year immediately prior to the 
passage of the exclusion law, the people east of the Rocky 
Mountains will see what necessity there was for such a drastic 
ukase, and how the industries mentioned fared under the relief 
from the supposed pressure of Chinese competition. The me- 
morialists admit that 30,000 Chinese left the state in the past 
twenty years. 

Mr. Gompers says that "the pro-Chinese element in this 
country depends, in a large measure, upon the general ignorance 
that prevails east of the Rocky Mountains as to the merits or 
demerits" of exclusion. There is, no doubt, much truth in 
what Mr. Gompers says, and to remove this deplorable 
ignorance I offer a few statistics from the reports of the assessor 
of the city and county of San Francisco for the ten years 
ending June 30, 1901. ' 

In 1890-91, there were 10,175 skilled workers employed in 
the industries named in the memorial. Of these, 3,900 were 
Chinese. The value of the output was $18,541,000. At the 
end of the fiscal year 1900-01, the number of toilers employed 
in said industries was 6,705. Of these, 1,820 were Chinese, 
and the output was valued at $11,595,000. Thus, instead of 
regaining the 4,000 white toilers that are alleged to have been 
displaced, we have lost 3,470 skilled workers in the last ten 
years, 2,180 of whom were Chinese, and we have fallen behind 
in the value of the output of these industries more than 

How long will it be, with this kind of progress, before the 
industries alleged to have been invaded by the Chinese will 
give employment to 4,000 more white people than are now 
engaged in them? Let the memorialists explain this phase of 
our manufacturing prosperity under the Geary Act. 

A few more extracts from the assessor's reports, where these 
bets are found, may not be amiss by way of illustration, and 
for the enlightenment of the ignorant pro-Chinese citizens who 
live east of the Rocky Mountains. 

In the fiscal year 1887-88, there were 3,200 people employed 
in the boot, shoe, and slipper industry in San Francisco, 2,000 
of them being Chinese, and the output was valued at $6,000,000. 
To-day — 1901 — we have 950 people employed in the same 
business, 250 being Chinese, and the annual output has fallen 
to $2,350,000. In 1887-88, there were 4,500 people employed 
in the cigar business, 500 of them being white workmen, and 
the output was valued at $7,000,000. To-day — 1901 — we have 
1,300 people employed in the same business, the number of 
white toilers remaining the same, — 500, — but the annual out- 
put has diminished to $2,000,000. In 1890-91, there were 2,800 
people employed in the clothing business, and the annual 
output was valued at $6,500,000. To-day, the clothing industry 
is reduced to the employment of 1,050 people, 250 of them 
being Chinese, and the value of the output is reduced to 
$1,500,000. In 1884-85, there were two woolen mills in San 
Francisco, and there were 1,500 people employed in them, with 
an output valued at $1,900,000. To-day, there is one woolen 
mill in the city, and there are 145 people employed, 20 of them 
being Chinese, and the output is reduced to $350,000. Thirty 
years ago the blankets made in our California woolen mills 
had an international reputation, and were probably the best in 
the world. 

No, Mr. Gompers; it is not the cause which you allege in 
"Meat vs. Rice" that is a menace to the white toilers of this 
city. The evil is much broader and deeper, and it prevails 
wherever access to the land is restricted by antiquated laws, 
and wherever the state prevents the free exchange of the 
product of man's labor, which it does by allowing monopolies 
in the medium of exchange and in facilities for transportation. 
The municipal reports of this city are sometimes instructive 
reading. They should have been studied by the memorialists 
before they spread their wail before the world. I will cite 
three more items; then Mr. Gompers may take the case. 

In 1890-91, there were 52 tanneries and wool-pulling estab- 
lishments in San Francisco. They employed 1,030 people, 
and the output was valued at $3,195,000. To-day, the number 

of tanneries is reduced to 25. the number of men employed 
has fallen to 330, and the product has dwindled to $1,460,000. 
The foundry business flourished here from the beginning of our 
municipal history. In 1888-89, there were forty foundries in 
this city, and they gave employment to 4,375 men and boys, the 
output being $7,000,000. To-day, after twelve years of growth in 
population, and the immense demand for machinery in Alaska 
and the farther north, — the extraordinary demand for men 
and material to repair and fit out our colonial transports, — 
the foundries and machine-shops combined employ only 5,500 
people, and the output is placed at $7,500,000. In 1891, the 
furniture industry gave employment to 950 men, with an out- 
put valued at $1,530,000. In 1895-96, the same industry 
dwindled down to 100 men, and the output was valued at 
$100,000. After 1895-96 the furniture industry does not ap- 
pear upon the assessor's reports. Here we have three staple 
industries in which Chinese are not employed; one of them 
has gone out of existence, another has stood still, and the tan- 
ners' annual output has been reduced more than one half. 

The memorialists were not interested in making these facts 
public, because in order to explain them they would have been 
obliged to go outside the Chinese question. They had no de- 
sire, and were not prepared, to discuss the equitable compensa- 
tion of labor. It will be seen that San Francisco has fallen 
behind in the number of men employed, both in those indus- 
tries where Chinese compete and in those where there is no such 

Not only has the output decreased in the eight industries 
selected by the memorialists as examples of the effect of Chi- 
nese competition, but w r ages have fallen; and employment 
is uncertain in at least one of these industries, — boot and shoe 
making. Nine dollars per week is considered fair wages for 
the few operatives that yet remain in our shoe factories. 

With our increase of 14.51 per cent in population in the last 
decade, we should have now nearly 12,000 skilled laborers em- 
ployed in the eight industries mentioned by the memorialists; 
instead of which we have only 6,705 people of all colors en- 
gaged in those industries. According to the same rate of 
increase, the value of the' output from the same industries 
should have been more than $20,000,000, instead of being but 
little more than half of this sum. Thus we are driven to the 


conclusion that the industries mentioned by the memorialists 
as being invaded by the Chinese have fallen behind in the last 
ken years — when compared with the rate of increase in popu- 
lation — nearly one half. Is this a coincidence? or is it cause 
and effect? 

The memorialists have made an ex parte statement to influ- 
ence votes, and it is presumable that they know that the back- 
ward state of the industries mentioned is not due to Chinese 
competition, and that it cannot be remedied by an exclusion 
act. Many of them freely admit that if the 45,000 Chinese 
who are in this state were to be deported to-morrow, there 
would be a panic in our industrial life, and misery in many of 
our homes, yet the rise of the wage rate would be hardly per- 

To-day the Chinese laborer is as much a factor in the labor 
market of the world when he is employed in China as he would 
be if he were employed in Connecticut. The whole world is 
now an open market. The manufacturing syndicates of this 
country can, through the control of subsidized and protected 
industries, force their way into and demoralize any market in 
the world. It makes no material difference to the great em- 
ployers of labor whether the few thousands of Chinese work 
here or in China. Their control of the mechanism of exchange 
gives them a profit on the labor of the Chinese, as well as on 
the labor of the Caucasian wage-worker, no matter where 
either may be situated. It would disappoint me very much to 
see the American Federation of Employers make any serious 
effort to retard the passage of the exclusion act. The laborers 
who are the favorites of our modern labor lords are the healthy 
young natives of the British Islands, or their descendants; or 
the graduates of our American common schools, who have been 
taught that the American is the greatest man on God's foot- 
stool, and who are willing to prove it by working their young 
lives out for their employers, as if the whole furnishing of the 
earth must be done during their working lifetime. These are 
the men who have given character to American labor, and 
extraordinary profit to American capital. The same spirit was 
characteristic of the British laborer at one time, and Mr. 
Brassey, an English labor lord, speaks of it very intelligently 
in comparing the British "navvy" with the French laborer. 
This immolating characteristic is peculiar to the British and 

American toiler, and is not a trait of the Chinese worker, ex- 
cept upon extraordinary occasions. The American employer 
has found out this fact, and he does not employ Chinese labor, 
except where a certain stereotypted mechanical skill and 
steady, plodding qualities are required. It is very doubtful 
whether Chinese labor is much cheaper than American labor, 
taking all the factors into consideration. 

When an American contractor has two days' work that he 
wants done in one day's time, he does not hunt a Chinaman 
for the job. The Chinese who are now employed on this 
Coast are not employed so much in large bodies as they for- 
merly were. They are mostly employed by people who are 
struggling to establish and maintain an independent industry. 
The Chinaman offers to the independent producer the last 
chance to live, and keep from being an appendage to a trust 
or to one of its tentacles. In a word, the Chinaman is the only 
working-machine that cannot be wholly controlled by the 
American Federation of Employers, and to disturb the rela- 
tions that now exist, or even to prevent the small producer 
from access to this source of help, would be to hinder social 
and material progress on this Coast. 

If the conditions obtained to-day that existed in pioneer 
times, there would be no hue and cry against the Chinese. 
Not a word from the convention about restoring those condi- 

For the culture that prevails in the state of California we 
are largely indebted to the patient but despised Asiatics. 
They have done our drudgery from the beginning without 
complaint. They have built our railroads, drained our 
swamps, planted our fruit trees, and gathered our harvests. 
They have done everything that faithful servants could do to 
secure our comfort and welfare, and now, because we are unequal 
to the task of making laws which will equitably distribute the 
wealth that we produce, we want to close our gates against the 
people who have done so much to make us one of the " grand- 
est states of the Union." It reminds one of the ostrich sticking 
his head in the sand, waiting until the storm blows over. The 
indications are that our storm will not blow over until the 
laborer gets an equitable share of his product. We are up 
against the Sphinx, and exclusion is no answer to the riddle. 

If we pass this exclusion act, and make this the settled 

policy of our country, what a howling farce we make of our 
sacred declarations, our mouthings of liberty and Christian 

There is hardly a public man in this country whose utter- 
ances, when sane, and speaking for human rights, do not con- 
tradict and refute his former position when he speaks on the 
Chinese question. 

Listen to one of Mr. Gompers's last paragraphs in behalf of 
justice. He said, in New York, a few days since: "I would 
not tolerate or stand by or permit, as far as my powers or 
opportunity may afford, that the rights of the weakest of our 
fellow- workers shall be trampled upon." Noble sentiments; 
but they are simply a mockery, when we know that he who 
utters them means that they shall apply only to a favored race 
and class. Is it not strange that leaders and representatives 
of labor do not see that they cannot get justice for themselves 
until they are willing and anxious to yield it to the lowest of 
their kind. 

The true and permanent method of building is to begin at 
the bottom, get better conditions for the lowest in the scale of 
humanity, and the higher ones are bound to go up with them. 
It is frequently asserted by class reformers that when they get 
their fight won, they will start in to elevate those who are be- 
low them, regardless of color. Such a course is without historic 
example, and seems to be utterly at variance with human 

Hear what the historian Robertson says upon this matter: 
"To abandon usurped power, to renounce lucrative error, are 
sacrifices which the virtue of individuals has, on some occasions, 
offered to truth, but from no society of men can such an effort 
be expected. The corruptions of society recommended by 
common utility and justified by universal practice are viewed 
by its members without shame or horror, and reformation 
never proceeds from themselves, but is always forced upon 
them by some foreign hand." 1 

i Since writing the above, my attention has been called to the following extraor- 
dinary statement written by Mr. H. Latham, published in the San Francisco Chron- 
icle, October 24, 1S86: — 

In 1868, "several of the most powerful of the feudal princes rose against the 
Tycoon, and a civil war was waged. To stop this and pacify the princes, the Tycoon 
was deposed and the Emperor resumed the reins of government, and then occurred 
one of the most remarkable revolutions of history. These feudal princes, number- 


This is the experience of human society, and we may be sure 
that if the Chinaman is now thrust out without protest, the toiler 
who takes his place will enjoy but little better conditions than 
those that were enjoyed by the Asiatic. And furthermore, a 
precedent will be established for the exclusion of other peoples 
who may come under the ban of the imperious and exclusive 
Anglo-Saxon. In this connection I would earnestly warn my 
fellow-countrymen that the trend of what may be called ethical 
analysis is to compare and differentiate the qualities of the 
races that have contributed to the formation of the American 
nation, to the disadvantage of the Celtic element. 

The condition of labor throughout the country proves that 
even where there is no Chinese competition, the sweat-shops 
exist, and the law must be constantly invoked to protect the 
helpless from the greed of monopoly. It was only the other 
day that the legislature of another state was called upon to pass 
a law prohibiting the immolation of little children in the cot- 

Is it not preposterous to ask the nation to exclude from its 
shores a people whose industry and thrift are their greatest 
crimes, or because we in California have so handicapped our- 
selves that we cannot compete with the cheap capital and 
cheap labor east of the Rocky Mountains, whose products are 
transported to our market at rates that always favor the ship- 
per as against the local producer? 

Should the Geary Act be re-enacted, it will be in order to 
petition Congress to prevent steamers from landing at our 
docks, because they may have come from China, or have a 
Chinese cargo or a Chinese crew. Such a petition would be 
just as sensible as the petition to decrease the supply of skilled 
laborers within our boundaries, while the whole territory west 
of the Rocky Mountains does not contain three millions of 
people, and while four fifths of the soil is practically unoccu- 

We have allowed our natural wealth to be alienated from 

ing two hundred and sixty, having control of all the lands and revenues of the 
empire, with the exception of the five central provinces, at the head of one million 
men at arms, intrenched at two hundred and sixty fortified castles, voluntarily 
resigned their power and property and retired to private life." 

This is probahly the only example that history records of such self-denying 
patriotism, and does not weaken the general statement made by Robertson. As it 
did not occur in an Anglo-Saxon or even a Caucasian state, it shows what we may 
expect from the Orient. 


us, and held out of economic use, thereby preventing us from 
taking the industrial and commercial status which our climate, 
soil, and position on the great Pacific Ocean have manifestly 
marked out for us. And we foolishly think that in excluding 
a people who are able and willing to make our waste lands 
blossom like the rose, we are getting rid of their competition 
and making more opportunities for the white race. 

Before we pass an exclusion act, which experience has proved 
detrimental to the industries of this city and Coast, why not 
endeavor to restore the conditions which would root the white 
race in the soil ? Do this, and all the millions of Asia cannot 
dispossess it. 

I write on this question of immigration with some feeling, 
as my countryman, the Paddy-Saxon, had always done the 
hard and disagreeable work of this country before the advent 
of the Chinaman. 

We have hitherto built the roads, digged the canals, planted 
and gathered the crops, and we have done this work at the 
lowest possible wage-rate, — that amount which was sufficient 
to support life and reproduce our kind. We have had persecu- 
tion, just as the Chinese are having it; we were called the 
" Low Irish," and Californians do not forget the early years of 
the Argonaut, when the editor made the " Pope's Irish " the tar- 
get for much of his vituperative and bitter sarcasm. I well re- 
member the Know-nothing crusade in New England, which 
lasted from 1853 to 1856, and have listened to the agitator 
known as the " Angel Gabriel," the prototype of the present ex- 

I heard this old bigot of high-sounding cognomen warn the 
people of Massachusetts against harboring the poor Irish ser- 
vant-girls, and especially to beware of their brothers who car- 
ried the hod. The " Know-nothing " crusade was based largely 
upon economic grounds, and the New England anti-Hibernians 
were just about as stupid and as ignorant of true political 
economy as were the members of our recent exclusion conven- 

It has taken many years to remove the prejudice that ex- 
isted against the Irish, which the people of this country have 
inherited from their alleged Anglo-Saxon ancestors. 

Indeed, the Irish, as one of the persecuted races, should be 
found among the last of the peoples of the earth to injure their 

"weaker fellow- workers," or to deny them the right of access 
to this country upon the same conditions that they desire for 
their own countrymen. For, notwithstanding our numbers, 
and our complete identification with the institutions of the 
country in war and peace, many of our fellow-citizens treat us 
as if we were here by sufferance, and even now resent our right 
to take part in the government and other affairs of the nation. 
We have but recently been admitted into the sacred order of 
Anglo-Saxondom, and many of us have not yet received the 
password. It may be interesting to state that a large class of 
humble toilers and useful citizens of this country have never 
held meetings to protest against the admission of Chinese 
labor. I refer to our Afro- American brethren. 

The law that would exclude a man because he is compelled 
to work for a wage not regulated by equity, but arbitrarily es- 
tablished by unfair and trammeled competition, would have 
kept out the majority of immigrants who came to this country 
prior to 1860, and many of those who arrived since that date. 

It is possible that there are sufficient immigrants and their 
descendants in the United States of America and colonial de- 
pendencies to give the elemental factors necessary to the for- 
mation of that superb conglomerate, the Anglo- Afro-Celto- 
Teuto-Scando-Slavo-Tagalo-Saxon, which, for lack of more 
scientific nomenclature, we call American. 

It is no doubt desirable to keep up the population at least 
to the present number; our political institutions, as at present 
ordered, are on such a scale that any serious reduction in our 
population would be considered a sign of decadence, which, of 
course, is unthinkable in connection with our imperial 
republic. However, the physiologists have asserted that the 
Anglo-Saxon and his descendants in this country are falling 
behind in the birth-rate. If this be true, it would not be 
an unmixed evil, as there are plenty of all kinds of Saxons here 
at present to give our future composite race enough of the 
qualities which have made the natives of the "tight little 
island" so loved among the nations of the earth. 

If immigration is to be restricted, if we cannot afford to be 
right, let us be consistent; and as friend Dooley suggests, as we 
are here a few boat-lengths ahead of Sing Hi, Lopez, Sbarboro, 
Ripyinski, and their crowd, we will aid the polyhedral Saxon 
in preventing the lads who were late for the boat from landing 

unlawfully on our "stern and rock-bound coast"; but, for the 
love of fair play,- which is alleged to be an Anglo-Saxon 
attribute, — let us admit all our future Argonaut and Pilgrim 
Fathers on exactly the same conditions. 


Laidley Strect, Pan Francisco, Cal., 
February, 1902. 


"It is contended by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and 
other American lines that it would be impossible for them to 
employ and pay white help in competition with foreign lines 
in the same trade employing Chinese and Japanese. In reply 
to this, we submit that upon a fair trial it would be demon- 
strated that the reduction possible in the number of men em- 
ployed under an American labor system, and the much greater 
individual efficiency of the latter, would fully offset the increase 
in the rate of wages. 

" We would further point to the notorious unreliability of the 
Chinese and other Asiatics in times of emergency on shipboard. 
This characteristic has been demonstrated on numerous occa- 
sions, — in fact, in every case of wreck or other serious accident. 
By way of illustration we would cite the case of the collision 
between the steamers City of Chester and Oceanic in the 
Golden Gate some years ago. The former vessel, manned by 
American seamen, sank, with great loss of life. The Oceanic 
(chartered by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company), though 
little damaged, rendered practically no assistance to the sink- 
ing vessel, for the reason that her Chinese crew became terror- 
stricken and were unable to launch the boats. The American 
seamen and firemen of the City of Chester had actually to 
make their way to the Chinese-manned vessel and launch the 
latter's boats, and by so doing managed to save many lives 
that would otherwise have been lost through the inefficiency 
and cowardice of the Chinese. 

" Coming down to the recent loss of the Pacific Mail Steamship 
Company's steamer City of Rio de Janeiro, in the harbor of 

San Francisco, it will be remembered that that vessel remained 
above water for fifteen or twenty minutes after striking, thus 
affording ample time to get the boats overboard and secure the 
lives of the passengers. In this case, too, a panic occurred 
among the Chinese crew, with the result that 127 lives were 
lost, including the greater number of passengers, many of 
whom were women and children. 

"John Kean, 
"Secretary pro tern. Sailors' Union of the Pacific. 

"John Bell, 
" Secretary Pacific Coast Marine Firemen's Union. 
" Eugene Steidle, 
" Secretary Marine Cooks and Stewards' Association." 

The foregoing paragraphs are taken from a printed statement 
entitled "Chinese in the Sea-faring Trades," a part of the ap- 
pendix to the Proceedings. The statement is in the nature of 
an affidavit, and is signed by the secretaries of three organiza- 
tions for the protection of " men who go down to the sea in ships," 
viz., Sailors' Union of the Pacific, Pacific Coast Marine Fire- 
men's Union, and the Marine Cooks and Stewards' Associa- 
tion. The document, at first glance, has an appearance of 
authority, and one might expect that the statements made 
therein might contain at least the semblance of the truth. 
Mr. Furuseth, of the Chinese exclusion delegation at Wash- 
ington, is said to have repeated the statements made in the 
document mentioned, and, no doubt, being a sailor, he added 
much force to his argument by his knowledge of nautical af- 
fairs. Like many, I might say almost all, the statements made 
by the exclusionists, this statement will not stand investiga- 

What are the facts in relation to the wreck of the City of 
Chester, which was run down by the Occidental and Oriental 
steamship Oceanic on Angust 22, 1888, in the harbor of San 

To arrive at the facts, we will print statements of the captain 
of the Oceanic, and of others, and the verdict of the con- 
sular court of inquiry. 

"'How did the Chinese crew behave?' asked the vice-consul 
of Captain Metcalf of the steamship Oceanic. 'Splendidly; 
we had not the slightest trouble in getting the boats off. We 

have boat drills every day in port and every week at sea. 
We can put off ten boats, fully manned, in fifteen or eighteen 
minutes. But in an emergency this can be done much quicker. 
We always carry four boats, ready for immediate action. We 
rescued people from the Chester over our bow with rope and 
by hand.' 'Did the Chinese render any assistance in rescuing 
the Chester's people?' was asked. 'Yes; very readily; but 
there were a large number of Chinese passengers who had 
nothing to do with the ship, — 130 crew, 35 of them white. 
The fact is, that, four minutes after we struck the Chester, 
our boats were in the water. The Chinese acted splen- 
didly. Their movements were exceedingly rapid. As the 
Chester sank, one of her yards struck the boat in which 
Second Officer Bridgett was carried down in the vortex, 
and the four Chinamen only escaped by reason of their presence 
of mind in seizing hold of a piece of wreckage. All came to 
the surface and clung to the keel of the boat until they were 
rescued. Officer Bridgett was severely hurt, and was within 
an ace of being drowned. Another Chinaman' (Ah Lun), 
continued Captain Metcalf, ' jumped overboard to rescue a 
little four-months-old baby. He was dragged down with the 
wreck, but caught hold of the child and climbed with it on 
the keel of the boat. His legs and feet were fearfully lacer- 
ated.' " 

Decision. — " That the master, John Metcalf, and Louis Meyer, 
the pilot, appear to have navigated the steamship Oceanic in 
a safe and proper manner, and when casualty was apparently 
inevitable, to have done everything in their power to avert the 
calamity. The chief officer, G. T. Tilston, G. E. Bridgett, second 
officer, and the other officers of the crew, were each and all at 
their respective stations, proper discipline appearing to have 
been maintained, and all orders properly attended to. The 
boats, which were immediately manned, were the means of 
saving many lives. The court has no ground for blaming any 
of the above officers or crew of the steamship Oceanic, but de- 
sire to record their praise, that each and all performed their 
duty."— Call, August 30, 1888. 

From the Chronicle's Interview with Hon. Clitus Barbour. — "I 
saw from the height of that vessel [the Oceanic] over the Ches- 
ter, it was difficult to get aboard. So I and some of the other 
passengers tried to launch the boat, but from the manner in 

which it was made fast we found it difficult to do so. I think 
that there was not only carelessness before the vessel struck, 
but also after. I saw no attempt on the part of the crew of the 
Chester to lower any boats. Boats were lowered, after a long 
delay, by the Chinese crew of the Oceanic." 

No doubt Mr. Barbour, after being deserted by the Scando- 
Saxon crew of the Chester, thought that the crew of the Oceanic 
worked slowly, but there is ample evidence that there was at 
least one of the Oceanic's boats at the side of the Chester about 
that time, and Mr. Bridgett, the second officer of the Oceanic, 
was warned not to be drawn down by the sinking ship. Mr. 
Bridgett's Chinese boat's crew paid no heed to the warning, but 
rescued two women from the tangled wreckage of the Chester. 

" Albert Holton, another seaman of the Chester, was seen. 
He and a man named Stevenson were at the wheel. As soon 
as the vessel was struck, Stevenson left his post and cried, 
' Every man for himself,' and made his escape by clambering 
up on the bowsprit of the Oceanic." 

I have quoted at considerable length from the account of the 
wreck of the Chester because the case has been quoted abroad 
against the efficiency of Chinese sailors. The reader will see 
that not only is the statement a falsehood, but that the Chinese 
seamen of the Oceanic acted with promptness and courage." 
The heroism of the uncertificated coolie, Ah Lun, has never 
been excelled, yet the brave fellow could not step ashore, on the 
landing of the steamer, to receive the congratulations of his 
countrymen, while the white cur who abandoned his post at 
the critical moment, crying, "Every man for himself," was 
free to go on shore, and is probably here now, strenuously 
urging the exclusion of Ah Lun's countrymen. Mr. Brigdett 
received a gold watch for his heroism on the occasion, and I 
suppose he wonders why, as his Chinese crew were the real 
heroes of the day. Ah Lun was presented with twenty dollars 
by the British consul, who could not refuse to recognize the 
heroism of the Asiatic. 

Lack of space prevents me from giving the facts in regard to 
the other wrecked vessels named by the exclusionists, but there 
is little doubt that the same kind of evidence could be obtained. 

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.